Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing is doing a serialized reading of Peter Gutmann's paper, A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. If you haven't read the paper yet, your procastination has paid off. You can now have it read to you. It's one of the better resources out there for getting informed about all of the new restrictions that have been smuggled into Vista.

Here's the feed link for the series, and here's the first installment.

UPDATE: You can find the OGG version here.

One commenter on digg.com asked what the sense of my article is. Is it just that Microsoft Vista will introduce new levels of encryption to the playback of HD content? I wish it were as simple as that. And this goes way beyond the idea that consumers will have to pay for the extra components on the video cards which will not be used if they don’t play HD content. It goes way beyond the fact that pirated HD content is already available which invalidates all their efforts to date. The real issue that warrants your attention is that Microsoft has teamed up with the entertainment industries (RIAA + MPAA) to create an operating system that can control what you do, where you do it, and how you do it. The real issue is that they are collectively pushing degenerative technology which is causing a cultural backslide.

The new features which create “pipelines” to secure audio and video ensure that consumers can not play movies or music on devices that are not approved. More then ever, the industries who produce the entertainment consumed by the masses treat those very same people as potential criminals. Microsoft isn’t kowtowing to demands; they are gladly aiding the entertainment industry to fight a battle they themselves are waging. Piracy affects anyone who distributes products under a restrictive copyright regime. Unlike what many a blog commenter has tried to argue DRM is not free. There are significant costs involved which I have tried to outline in my previous articles in the form of additional hardware, resource usage, engineering time, technical support, and PR spin to counter people like me who are against such things. One commenter on the windowsvistablog was nice enough to extract all six mentions of who is paying for these restrictions. The consumer.

Yet if one were to conduct a survey among users I would find it difficult to believe that anyone would list DRM high on their wish list. It’s difficult to imagine someone asking for “computers which run software you can’t see, can’t understand, can’t control, and which reports to other people what is going on in your network without your ability to interrupt or do anything?”. Even if the payoff is the ability to play back HD content from major studios. This is the leverage that Microsoft has touted from the beginning and their hope is that consumers value this “ability” so highly as to turn a blind eye to the degenerative methodologies embedded in the very core of their new operating system.

Part of the adherence to the Advanced Access Content System (AACS) specifications is the deliberate obfuscation of drivers and the withdrawal of open hardware specifications. When an approved device is given a piece of HD content the operating system begins negotiating with the device to verify that it is real and authentic. To accomplish this, undocumented calls are made to the device verifying that it is not a fake device intent on viewing unencrypted frames of the premium content. How does this affect you? Dave Marsh responded that “HFS uses additional chip characteristics other than those needed to write a driver. HFS requirements should not prevent the disclosure of all the information needed to write drivers.” What he doesn’t mention is that the authors of the drivers for future video hardware are under contract to obfuscate their code and keep their specifications closed. Closed specifications affect hardware design for ALL operating systems. Free software driver developers will find less and less publicly available documentation. One of the commenters on my original post had a great response which I’m including here.

“I don’t care about ‘premium content’, neither copied nor purchased, and yet I, as a software developer, have to live with the fact that it’s hard to use 3D graphics cards using free drivers. Thanks to the deal between the likes of MPAA-Microsoft-ATI, the situation won’t improve, it will only get worse. “

BadVista shirts are now available! Purchasing them helps support the campaign and the work of the Free Software Foundation. It's also a great way to get the BadVista message out to people who don't spend quite as much time on the Internets as some of us do.

Choose freedom:

Put Vista where it belongs:

This past Saturday in Boston, BadVista and binaryfreedom.info activists met up at a Vista launch event held by Microsoft for college students.

Their presence was a much-needed antidote to the overzealous Microsoft marketing machine. They distributed GNU/Linux CDs, BadVista stickers, and FSF flyers, helping to raise awareness about the many restrictions hidden in Vista's proprietary code and the superior free alternatives.

We were tipped off to this event by a BadVista supporter, and were able to organize people and materials to go at the last minute. If you hear about anything similar happening in your area, let us know!

Since the launch of Vista several governments and government agencies around the world have said publicly that they will not use it, including the US Department of Transportation and the US National Institute of Standards and Technology. But we need to make sure that the space this creates is filled by free software operating systems like GNU/Linux.

In some cases, governments are instead moving to other kinds of proprietary software. This is why we need to emphasize the freedom of free software operating systems like GNU/Linux and not just their technical advantages (as represented by the term “open source”). What we want is not the rejection of Microsoft in particular—we want governments to acknowledge the ethical ramifications of their software choices and leave proprietary software behind entirely.

Though the rejections so far are good news, we shouldn't get complacent. In some cases these Vista bans are being presented as only temporary measures, with Vista still under long-term consideration. We still need to let our government officials know that we support free software.

If you are a Massachusetts resident, you can let Governor Patrick know that you want the Commonwealth to free itself from proprietary software interests for good by going to http://devalpatrick.com/issue/freesoftware and endorsing the issue.

What can be done in other states, and other countries?

Read more Stories about government agencies that have rejected Windows Vista.